Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Someone above commented that the Agreement didn't require a customer. True, but once Rossi introduced that factor, and introduced to prove that the test worked, Rossi can't now say "ignore that the customer was fake."

Also, introduced to induce IH to allow the test to proceed. There is clear e-mail evidence from Rossi arguing the test (in the form he wanted but IH did not) would be valuable and was needed urgently because of the customer which would make magnificent PR (and for IH better validation).

Quote from woodworker

Rossi testifying himself will be interesting. I predict that he will go off on lots of detours and tangents and it will be interesting to see how JD responds. Rossi may bring up lots of stuff that may not be directly relevant or admissible, e.g., his "sales" of the ecat to other parties as evidence of his brilliance and that they work. JD could object that this is not relevant and therefore not admissible or not object or JD could allow that testimony and then question him on cross about these other "sales" and whether or not they really exist. Such questions/topics might not have been permitted on cross if Rossi hadn't brought them up on direct, but once he brings it up on direct, they are fair game on cross. As such, this could give JD more scope to go after Rossi's credibility on cross.

Yes, I agree that he will likely attempt to go on lots of detours and tangents. He will also play up the non-English native language difference so he can misunderstand whenever it suits him.

Quote from Rends

It is like painting pictures, Howard Michael Appel, nickname woodworker ...

https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…ost-list/2411-woodworker/

...a very experienced lawyer, describes his experiences inside the US law system and gives Rossi et.al no chance at all to win this trial. But, is this really the truth? Maybe, but the Americans have also elected Donald Trump, so we have to see what happened to Rossi.

Rends just so we are clear what do you think of Fred Flintstone?

Let's please avoid anything that can be construed as a legal threat on this forum. If someone feels moved in such a direction at some point, the matter can be pursued through other channels.

Quote from woodworker

Just to point something out: What is the purpose behind you forming separate legal entities that don't actually conduct business - to defraud the counterparty, in this case IH. FRAUD and having formed the separate legal entities won't protect you.

Both parties created multiple separate legal entities. There are reasons besides defrauding the counterparty to do so. Listen, I was one of the first to call Rossi out on the JMP ruse and think it will sink his boat before the jury. But if you have carefully followed the evidence as I and others here have, you will discover that IH are nowhere near spotless in this affair.

Quote from woodworker

How do I know it didn't work - just a few points: (1) fake customer and fake invoices; (2) Rossi created the fake customer, etc. because he knew it didn't work; (3) Rossi's inability to replicate; (4) Penon taking a hike; and (5) no expert stepping up for Rossi giving an expert opinion that it works/worked.

I can understand why you would draw those conclusions based on your legal mind. But each of these contentions has been addressed multiple times from a more scientific and evidence-based purview.

For example, Rossi probably created the customer story to entice IH to get the test underway, as IH were dragging their feet (indeed, IH had no inducement whatsoever to see that the GPT was completed, because all it meant was an $89 million bill--they already had the know-how). By way of another example, there is no evidence on the record of Rossi having an "inability to replicate." In fact, there is significant evidence that IH in fact did replicate with a COP as high as 9.

By way of yet another example, there are a tiny number of scientists (probably less than you can count on one hand) willing to vouch for LENR while put under scrutiny in a court of law. These are not trained expert witnesses. They are scientists who have been made pariahs by the scientific community. They would gain nothing by vouching for Rossi--let alone LENR in such a venue.

I could go on, but you could just click on my username and read my past posts, which will provide you with a plethora of alternative explanations for the evidence that we see.

In this case, the ERV report serves as the skeleton behind which all the interactions are made. If IH was unhappy, all year, why didn't they say so? Why didn't they say they were unhappy with the report in the first few months? Why are they suddenly unhappy with the report when it was time to pay Rossi? Or when Rossi decided to go on vacation and his Fred Flinstone dinosaur rockmover machine stopped working? Shouldn't they have been unhappy with the report months earlier?

I agree, IH would indeed be on weak ground in that case. They have four strong points

(1) The semblance to a real GPT that Rossi now claims was not in the documentation at the time. Rossi has no written evidence saying it was the GPT, and there is written evidence saying something quite difference at the start. The written evidence was for Rossi asking IH whether he could do some gardening work on the shrubs.

(2) Rossi lied to Hydrofusion before the test, and used lies to make the test happen. Thus Rossi was wrongly claiming a benefactor who would give IH a big prize if the grass was cut, by him, in his way, now.

(3) Rossi did not transfer IP (we have sworn evidence his stuff did not work when tested by a competent engineer), and Rossi has no expert evidence it ever did work. Rossi had agreed to provide IH with new garden paths before he cut the grass. Experts say these paths do not exist.

(4) IH have experts saying that the Penon report must be wrong. Rossi has no contrary expert evidence, and Penon will not appear to support his report. Experts looking at the lawn say it could never have been mown, and Rossi's witness who claims to have seen the mowing will be absent. the witness Report is claimed by IH experts to be obviously concocted, mis-stating the position of various garden features.

They have one weak point. They let Rossi run this test as though it was the GPT without complaining much. A Jury might want to know why: and from what we see it is pretty obvious. They were never sure whether Rossi's stuff could be got to work. not at the start, not in the middle. If it did sometimes work, even if very unreliable (explaining all the dud tests) they very badly wanted it and had already paid a lot of money for it. They had evidence that Rossi was likely to make a bug fuss and stop cooperating if they challenged him (see darden's sworn testimony for what happened early on when they did this, and therefore why they would be treating him with kid gloves). IH looked out of the window and could see Rossi doing stuff in their garden which did not look much like mowing the lawn. But, he had a big lawnmower, and when they sent a gardener to check they were told that only a list of Rossi-approved non-gardeners were allowed to inspect the lawn. IH in the past found that Rossi needed to be left to work in his own way and got angry if questioned. IH decided on balance to let Rossi do his stuff and hope all would come out OK.

All in reality they stand accused of here is being overly hopeful about the possiblility of Rossi-LENR. Ironic, since those criticising IH now were (and in some cases still are) even more so. They misjudged how much trouble Rossi could cause. I don't actually blame them much - his case is absurd. Rossi gains credibility because he acts in a way that seems crazy if his stuff does not work, and for that reason alone people tend to suppose his stuff works. It is a high stakes Poker game which Rossi has played all his life and got away with. Rossi is bluffing, but no-one till now has called his bluff in a way that hurts Rossi.

I agree, the minute differences between the GPT and what was tested (6 cylinder unit) do not in common sense terms matter. The lack of signature by Ampenergo maybe does not matter, since everyone had agreed to extend the test time once, so why not again?

But, for real, Rossi lied to get the test, lied about the customer (which would provide solid validation of real and make checking anything else unnecessary), did not allow validation of the test setup (nor did Penon answer reasonable questions), has no expert evidence on his side.

That is damning in the real world, not just as a legal nicety.

Rossi can only have a case by selectively ignoring most of the fact, both in terms of legal letter-of-the-law and in terms of real world common sense.

Woodworker's reaction coming to this afresh is I think pretty typical, though I'd expect his judgement for what will actually happen in a Courtroom to be more informed than most here.

By way of yet another example, there are a tiny number of scientists (probably less than you can count on one hand) willing to vouch for LENR while put under scrutiny in a court of law. These are not trained expert witnesses. They are scientists who have been made pariahs by the scientific community. They would gain nothing by vouching for Rossi--let alone LENR in such a venue.

That is true - at least as far as vouching for LENR. No scientist has clear evidence that would stand up to scrutiny from peers, and the behaviour of those in the field now sometimes seems more like a cult than science. This is not helped by people paying attention to noises off from BG - though I'd guess the serious LENR people never have done this.

That argument however will do nothing to convince a Jury (or any independent fair-minded person) that the majority of scientists are wrong and this small number of pariahs are correct.

I could go on, but you could just click on my username and read my past posts, which will provide you with a plethora of alternative explanations for the evidence that we see.

Judgement is about choosing between arguments based on likelihood and overall context. I see from you an assiduous selection of specific arguments and pushing them regardless of overwhelming contrary evidence. Your arguments individually look possible, though not proven, but when put together they do not make sense of IH actions, and are contradicted by most of the evidence. I leave out making sense of Rossi's actions since he is clearly (and on record as being) non-rational over his claimed inventions.

Quote from [email protected]

I've been involved with a few court cases. And the judges aren't stupid. You set up a contract that calls for, say, window washing every Thursday. They pay you for the first 2 months, happy with the work. Then they stop paying you. They claim they were unhappy but have no evidence that they even reported being unhappy over the two months they didn't pay you but allowed you to keep working. Judges aren't stupid. They allow that the work was done under the existing (oral) contract, but the last window washing is allowed to go unpaid if the payor can show why he was unhappy. That is, unless you have a jackass or bribed judge.

In this case, the ERV report serves as the skeleton behind which all the interactions are made. If IH was unhappy, all year, why didn't they say so? Why didn't they say they were unhappy with the report in the first few months? Why are they suddenly unhappy with the report when it was time to pay Rossi? Or when Rossi decided to go on vacation and his Fred Flinstone dinosaur rockmover machine stopped working? Shouldn't they have been unhappy with the report months earlier? If you read the contract with the Fred Flinstone approach in mind, you see that IH didn't cover their legal butts that well. However, anything can happen in trial cases, so let's get some popcorn and find out.

they did say, and Rossi threw Joe M out so he could not see the "window".

Quote from IH Fanboy

Both parties created multiple separate legal entities. There are reasons besides defrauding the counterparty to do so. Listen, I was one of the first to call Rossi out on the JMP ruse and think it will sink his boat before the jury. But if you have carefully followed the evidence as I and others here have, you will discover that IH are nowhere near spotless in this affair.

I think this particular argument, that both Rossi and IH created multiple separate legal entities, and this somehow demonstrates that neither party is 'spotless', is extremely weak.

It is extremely common for ventures to set up Limited Liability Corporations in order to limit their liability (and in IH's case organize their business regarding the acquired IP). It's so common (and effective) that any lawyer (like Darden) who didn't do this might even be accused of malpractice (or at least gross incompetence) if they did not form LLCs or similar corporate structures to limit legal or tax liability (with Rossi doing the same with Leonardo Corp., LLC). This is not just 'not wrong' it is 'good corporate stewardship'. (Disclaimer: I have an LLC so maybe i'm not spotless either).

The issue is what you then do with those corporations. In Rossi's case, he unquestionably used these structures to deceive IH. The level of deception appears to legally be clear cut fraud (but we'll see what happens in court). There is no question, however, given the invoices and documented demands by Rossi to change the Johnson Matthey name in the Term Sheet to JM Products, that he intentionally deceived IH when creating that corporation.

I don't see any evidence that IH's multiple corporations were used to deceive in any way. Do you have any evidence that IH used their multiple corporations deceptively? For example, when IH assigned Rossi's IP to IPH, they wrote up that agreement which Rossi signed, so he was fully informed when he consented to that transfer. Furthermore, what harm or deception is there to Rossi or anyone else that IPH is the owner of Rossi's IP?

I might remind you of your tendency to assert arguments based on 'moral equivalence' even when there are obvious and strongly non-equivalent issues involved.

The IH Netherlands company shell is common for UK companies seeking to minimise tax liability. Standard stuff, and likely to be required by Woodford.

Quote from sigmoidal

I don't see any evidence that IH's multiple corporations were used to deceive in any way.

Then you didn't follow the deposition debacle very closely. Or you did, and are conveniently choosing to forget about it.

Quote from [email protected]

Let's say that you've got such a fancy-dancy lawnmower that you both hire an agreed third party person to write the report on whether the lawn was mowed. The 3rd party writes a favorable ERV report saying he thinks the lawn was mowed. How is the jury going to process that fact? Earlier you said you didn't even think the 3rd party report would be allowed into evidence. So if Rossi mentions the ERV report, does the judge declare a mistrial or tell the jury to 'disregard that remark'. If I were on the jury I'd have a lot of trouble disregarding that kind of remark.

"Earlier you said you didn't even think the 3rd party report would be allowed into evidence." OBJECTION, mischaracterizes earlier testimony - I said it was possible that it might not be allowed, not that it wouldn't be allowed.

As to: "So if Rossi mentions the ERV report, does the judge declare a mistrial or tell the jury to 'disregard that remark'.
If I were on the jury I'd have a lot of trouble disregarding that kind of remark."

Two scenarios: First: If the judge decides that the ERV is not admissible, Rossi might/will try to bring it up at least once. Instant objection by JD, before Rossi gets 10 words out of his mouth. Judge warns him about it. Rossi brings it up again, instant objection by JD, jury is excused and Judge tears Rossi a new fecal outlet and warns him that if he brings it up again he will either need to bring a tooth brush to court (i.e., contempt) or terminating sanctions.

Second scenario: JD doesn't object and then crosses Rossi on the report: Where is the author of the report, why isn't he here to testify, isn't the reason that he is not here to testify is because he knows the report is bogus, how can the report be truthful if the customer was fake and the invoices were faked, etc. etc.

I saw a comment somewhere about three points I think worth mentioning: the first is how expensive this trial must be, both in cost and potential damages. In reality, not that expensive. Potential damages, maybe 100 million - courts deal with bigger financial cases all the time. Cost of litigating, maybe a couple of million, again, in reality not that much.

Second, how complicated this case is and how could the judge/jury possibly understand it. Really not all that complicated. This is a contract dispute and federal courts in particular have lots of experience in dealing with much more complicated cases - think prosecuting money laundering related to the mob or terrorists, think patent cases where Appel or Microsoft or IBM are involved. And juries, despite their flaws, at the end of the day do a pretty good job of getting to the right answer.

Third: oops, I forgot (channeling that "esteemed" Rick Perry, our new Secretary of the Department of Energy, one of the departments he wanted to eliminate).

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Rossele - the only thing I have to say to you is to please keep publishing. It is very helpful material that you are cooking up.

Maybe I should say one more thing ----- The only you have to fear is Justice itself.

wow wow wow What an great Honor !

Great Weaver is threatening me!

And invokes the Goddess of Justice!

Very nice .

I'm pleased. You really make my day.